"An appropriation of water flowing on the public domain".

[Assembler]

The following is likely the restricted use of water say with a ”Dredging or other type of sluicing” use:

An appropriation of water flowing on the public domain consists in the capture, impounding, or diversion of it from its natural course or channel and its actual application to some beneficial use private or personal to the appropriator, to the entire exclusion (or exclusion to the extent of the water appropriated) of all other persons. To constitute a valid appropriation, there must be an intent to apply the water to some beneficial use existing at the time or contemplated in the future, a diversion from the natural channel by means of a ditch or canal, or some other open physical act of taking possession of the water, and an actual application of it within a reasonable time to some useful or beneficial purpose.

From Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed. Page 131.
This one does not think that a "Location Survey" alone will 'Trump / Over rule' a "Appropriation of water flowing on the public domain". What do you think?
Thanks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

Water in Oregon is appropriated "first in time first in line" the state does not own the water
and has to apply for use, including in-stream rights just like everyone else.
the State "manages" the application of water law so they manipulate whatever they want,
except for navigable rivers the land owner owns at least to the middle of the river,
they still have to secure water rights, and the state controls things like fish, pollution, removal/fill and such...

There is use of the "Water for miners" in the context of the "Mineral deposit lands" and there could be some in-stream use issues to work around (can't stop all the flow for example). Don't know the details off hand.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

By the way, I live in MC. Any chance of us getting together for coffee? PM me if you like.

Yes a get together sounds good at some point.

 

[Assembler]

My understanding was that the state owned the water and bed of the stream if it were navigable. So, rule of thalweg wouldn't come into play until one got upstream of the point where the stream was not navigable, and that boundary was decided in court. Right?

By the way, I cannot believe that using a dredge or sluice could logically be considered to be capturing, impounding, or diverting. The water isn't leaving the waterway. Course, what I believe has nothing to do with what our grand legislatures or judges might think.

The upstream of the navigable stream upon "State hood" is correct unless there have been dams, channels, nature etc. that effect the standing waters.
The "capturing, impounding, or diverting" is in a encompassing use for "Personal / commercial benefits". "Private use" is a different subject.
You are right about "what I believe has nothing to do with what our grand legislatures or judges might think".
Thank you for the questions.

 

[Assembler]

My understanding was that the state owned the water and bed of the stream if it were navigable. So, rule of thalweg wouldn't come into play until one got upstream of the point where the stream was not navigable, and that boundary was decided in court. Right?

By the way, I cannot believe that using a dredge or sluice could logically be considered to be capturing, impounding, or diverting. The water isn't leaving the waterway. Course, what I believe has nothing to do with what our grand legislatures or judges might think.

If the river is a boundary line Public and private law is that which is collected from natural principles, either of nations or in states; and that which in the civil law is called "Jus," in the law of England is said to be "Right".


If part of the river is not a boundary line upon "State hood" is not "Subject" under or to only "The State of ______"

 

[benny]

The "capturing, impounding, or diverting" is in a encompassing use for "Personal / commercial benefits". "Private use" is a different subject.
[/COLOR]".

What's the difference between "personal", and "private" use?

 

[Assembler]

What's the difference between "personal", and "private" use?

This goes into the "Foundation" of what is being "Claimed". Few are willing to talk about this in "Public".
Thanks

 

[Tnmountains]

Why are you asking this? Are you dredging or have a claim? The Fed Gov owns it if it is a navigable water way. That is Federal law. Why are you asking these questions and then giving answers. What is your purpose?

 

[Goldwasher]

bot

 

[Assembler]

bot

Found the "Bot" that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread:

Google employees resign in protest over controversial Pentagon AI project, report says
Google employees resign in protest over controversial Pentagon AI project, report says | Fox News
About a dozen Google employees are resigning in protest over the tech giant’s involvement in Project Maven, a controversial military program that uses artificial intelligence, Gizmodo reports.
Project Maven, which harnesses AI to improve drone targeting, has been a source of concern for a number of Google employees. Last month, over 3,100 Google workers signed a letter addressed to the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, asking him to pull the tech giant out of the project.
Announced last year, Project Maven is designed to swiftly pull important data from vast quantities of imagery.
The resigning employees’ concerns range from ethical worries about the use of AI in drone warfare to qualms about Google’s political decisions and a potential erosion of user trust, according to Gizmodo.
The tech news website cites an internal Google document containing written accounts from many of the employees detailing their decisions to leave. Multiple sources have reportedly shared the document’s contents with Gizmodo.

 

[Assembler]

Not sure I understand. Oregon owns the water, but private property owners own the riverbed to center of channel above navigable waterways? And since Oregon claims ownership of the water, how does one have "water rights"?
Just love this line "Once established, a water right must be used as provided in the right at least once every five years. With some exceptions established in law, after five consecutive years of non-use, the right is considered forfeited and is subject to cancellation." Since when can one lose a "right"? It seems legislatures don't know the difference between a right and permission.

Excellent point. "Legislatures" do know the difference. Just a smoke screening of the wording for "Public publications".
You are catching on to what is happening.